Language in the non-3D

DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 2540). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition.

(Q) You said you wanted to begin by disposing of the question about language.

(A)  That sounds like I'm going to toss it aside, but I'm merely going to clear up a point that many may not have considered.  It isn't particularly complicated, but some easy questions are nonetheless worthwhile.

(Q)  In other words, there are no stupid questions, so people shouldn't worry about asking things.

(A)  Yes, but also there isn't any way to tell in advance which question may illuminate something important, and which may not.  So - same conclusion:  People shouldn't worry about something they really want to know about may not be worthwhile.  If we - or you, or I alone - choose not to answer a question for a particular reason, fine, but there isn't any reason for people to hesitate to ask, provided their question is sincere.

(Q)  You saw me decline to ask you a question that would bring us to ideology or politics.

(A)  The real objections is that it would move us from the real work of examining reality from two viewpoints at once (in hopes of seeing it more clearly) and would move people into the easy and unproductive terrain of opinion.  Opinion has its place, and so does agricultural price reporting or news briefs or economic speculation, but this isn't it.

(Q)  In any case, to proceed with the question of language:

[Bob had asked: "When 'Rita' was in 3D, she spoke and thought in English.  She is communicating to us now, through Frank, in English (or does she just stimulate Frank's language so he writes the words in English)?  It's hard for us in 3D to imagine anything without use of whatever language we use on this planet, so how does the use of English, French, Swahili, etc., 'translate' over to the non-3D consciousness?  Do you 'think' and communicate in a language over there, or is there an entirely different way to communicate?"]

(A)  This is one of those questions that sounds complicated but is actually rather easily clarified.

(Q)  I'm remembering the joke about the rural preacher who opposed bilingualism because "if English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me."  We don't speak in words at all, do we?

(A)  Well, that depends on which "we" you mean.  Within 3D rules, everything is sequential.  You experience one thing, then the next thing, one at a time like children reciting their ABC's.  And that is what language is, a sequentially processed code.  Written or spoken, it is one word at a time, no matter how quickly the words are said or how simple or complex the words used, or in what language.  That is one reason why Bob [Monroe] stressed the use of NVC (non-verbal communication] - it is in simultaneously "grokked"[1] understandings that 3D-accustomed people - meaning, anybody experiencing themselves as in the body - may ...

(Q) [And it occurs to me, typing this, that some will not know what "grokking" means.  From a Robert Heinlein novel, Stranger in a Strange Land, it describes the instant comprehension of something, rather than the sequential processing of thought.]

Simultaneous versus sequential perceptions

DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 2583). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition.

(A)  If you (anyone, that is, not just you in particular, Frank) practice experiencing communication in non-sequential ways, you get closer to communication as it is in non-3D.  In other words, the way guidance is experienced, the way "psychic" knowing comes in, is always non-sequential, even if it needs to be translated into sequential processing for the individual to accept it.  Thus, if you can pick it up without such translation, it is a sudden knowing - which is why such knowings are the purest form of such communication.  If the information cannot be comfortably processed in that form, it may have to be experienced sequentially, as a vision, or speech, or some variety of dream or dream-like way.

(Q)  That's very interesting, and puts what I already knew in an enlightening context.

(A)  That's the idea here.  That's what teaching mostly is, the reinterpretation of familiar things in a new context.

So the question was, in essence, what language do we speak in non-3D, or to be fairer to the question, it asked the relation between various kinds of speech experienced in 3D and our communication in non-3D.  As you see, you already experience non-3D speech, some of you more often or more consistently than others.  It is in the simultaneously grokking that accompanies the temporary group mind that true communication occurs.  It is in the subsequent "stopping down" of such communication into 3D-sequential speech or thought that communication with minds occurs (and slips).  It is in the spoken or written conveyance of one understanding to another 3D-processing-system connected to another mind that 3D communication occurs, usually with huge slippage and, therefore, distortion.  Clear?

(Q)  To me, yes, but I have the benefit of direct communication, so I am grokking things every so often, as you know.  Whether clear to others, I guess we'll find out from feedback.

(A)  Summarize your understanding?

(Q)  Okay.  In 3D, everything sensory is experienced sequentially - speaking, writing, reading, even watching or hearing or anything sensory, I suppose.  Therefore we communicate by codes that are sequential, a faster version of tapping out Morse Code messages.  Different people speak different languages, but they are all sequential because everything sensory is sequential.

(A)  Or is perceived as sequential, anyway.

(Q)  Yes, that's what I meant.  But in the non-3D, it isn't sequential but simultaneous, though come to think of it, I can't quite imagine it, so non-3D thought is experienced not in sequential systems like language but in bursts, or in -

(A)  Well, that's close enough.  Your summary made clear to you, and thus to others, something you hadn't yet thought about.  It isn't really simultaneous outside of 3D - from the 3D understanding, anyway - but is very, very fast.

(Q) A million times faster.

(A)  Tell them.

(Q)  I read somewhere that the conscious mind perceives 42 (I think it was) bits of information per second, and the non-conscious mind 42 million bits per second.  This million-to-one disparity tells me that the unconscious mind - which I imagine amounts to us outside of 3D, experiencing life directly as opposed to us experiencing it through sequential processing - is probably the same thing as saying "the guys upstairs".  Anyway, anything we experience a million times faster than we can process it is going to appear instant to us.

(A)  Yes.  And although there is more to be said on the subject, if only because everything connects to everything else, that is enough for now.  A delay in saying more will enable people to ponder on just this much, and will give them a firmer ground as we proceed.  Saying more now might tend to slur over certain things.

---

[1] "Grokking" is a simplification of Seth's and Lazaris' "gestalts of awareness".  These gestalts of awareness happen in a moment, but they seem to get absorbed, digested or processed over time in 3D.  Gestalts initially are the knowing that you know something, but you can't initially put the knowing into words.

Cellular Consciousness

It's really hard to imagine that each cell in our body is aware of every other cell on the planet and is a living, vibrant expression of the consciousness of Gaia.  When I read this, it makes me realize just how small our intellect is and how arrogant and ignorant our modern science is!

“[Each] cell, then, as I have often said, operates so well in time because it is, in those terms, precognitive.  It is aware of the position, health, vitality, of all other cells on the face of the planet.  It is aware of the position of each grain of sand on the shores of each ocean, and in those terms, it forms a portion of the earth’s consciousness.

“At that level, environment, creatures, and the elements of the natural world are all united – a point we will return to quite often.  Your intellect as you think of it operates so clearly and precisely, so logically, sometimes so arrogantly, because the intellect rides that great thrust of codified, “ancient”, “unconscious” power – the power of instant knowing that is a characteristic of the body consciousness.”

(Dreams, “Evolution” and Value Fulfillment, Session 894)

The Physical Body Consciousness

 “So far in our discussion, then, we have an inner self, dwelling primarily in a mental or psychic dimension, dreaming itself into physical form, and finally forming a body consciousness.  To that body consciousness the inner self gives “its own body of physical knowledge”, the vast reservoir of physical achievement that it has triumphantly produced.  The body consciousness is not “unconscious”, but for working purposes in your terms, [the body] possesses its own system of consciousness that to some extent, now, is separated from what you think of as your own normal consciousness.  The body’s consciousness is hardly to be considered less than your own, or as inferior to that of your inner self, since it represents knowledge from the inner self, and is a part of the inner self’s own consciousness – the part delegated to the body.”

(Dreams, “Evolution” and Value Fulfillment, Session 894)

Physical Reality is formed of Electromagnetic Energy Units

The Electromagnetic Energy units (EE units) that Seth refers to here are the same as the "trapped light" that Lazaris refers to as the basis of what we perceive as physical 3D reality.  Thus what we know as physical matter and physical energy are all constructed from the EE units dreamed into existence by the CUs to host our dreams of physical reality.

“As the body became physical, however, the inner self formed the body consciousness so that the physical body became more aware of itself, of the environment, and of its relationship within the environment.  Before this could happen, though, the body consciousness was taught to become aware of its own inner environment.  The body was lovingly formed from the EE units through all the stages to atoms, cells, organs, and so forth.  The body’s pattern came from the inner self, as all of the units of consciousness involved in this venture together formed this fabric of environment and creatures, each suited to the other.”

(Dreams, “Evolution” and Value Fulfillment, Session 894)

Walking the possibilities

DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 2436). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition.

(Q)  Okay, Rita, here we go again.  We are walking the possibilities, you said.  Meaning -?

(A)  Copy the line from yesterday.

(Q)  "If you try to understand it while trying to think of life as physical, sequential, and "real", you can get only a vague and theoretical understanding that will have no application to your life."

(A)  That's the one.  Writing it out rather than being able to copy it from a computer file engages you in the process, helping mesh our operations.  Whenever you get stuck, you can try it; it is a simple tool.

(Q)  One I've used occasionally in writing, come to think of it, but not for many years.  Okay, so -

(A)  Feel your way back to an understanding of life as a unity - no splits, no physical or nonphysical, no "other side", but one thing all together with, shall we say, specialized locations, or perhaps local specialties.  That is, it isn't at all homogeneous, but neither is there any absolute division.  And feel yourself back to a sense of 3D reality being actually a special condition of overall reality, one that is projected from, or say conceived out of, the larger reality to produce a test tube's specialized conditions.

When you remember life that way, it is easier to feel how life is lived as unknowable patterns of energy, presenting themselves as tangible realities, and you don't have to imagine rocks in your path when you come to move.

(Q)  I got that, but in case anyone didn't, I take it to mean, if we think of the world as physical and somehow "realer" than energy, it is hard to really get the idea of so many realities being equally existent.  The idea of physical reality is one of "rocks in our path".

(A)  Exactly.  Much easier to think of changing channels.

So, proceeding from the 'imaginating' starting point ... You were one time given a vision of reality as not moving events, but planes of an unmoving crystal, planes inside the crystal - not external facets - that were illuminated alternately depending on how one shined a light on it, or perhaps we should say through it.

(Q)  I remember.  In my sessions with Skip in 2000, I think.

(A)  Well, you see, that is a very good metaphor for the underlying situation, if I can explain it.

The world is created.  (Not Earth, here; I mean physical reality in general.) As it springs into being, all of its potentialities spring into being in exactly the same way as an individual's potentialities spring into being with his or her conception.

You see?  It's all there from the beginning, because outside of 3D - it isn't process; it is being.

(Q)  There isn't any "becoming" about it because it isn't filtered through successive time-moments, the way we experience life in 3D.  Is that what you mean?

(A)  Yes.  Translated into 3D terms, it looks like "becoming", because it is so alien to 3D experience to think of something in a state of being rather than becoming.

(Q)  But, of course, "becoming" is precisely what we do experience here [in 3D physical reality].

(A)  Of course; that is the intent.  It's in the design.  But you can't understand things in a new way by continuing to see them only in the accustomed way.

(Q)  I understand.

(A)  Hold that image of all 3D reality as one giant unmoving and unchanging crystal.  (If that is more than you can do comfortably, envisage all aspects of your life as a crystal.  The image, not the precision, is the helpful thing here.)  The crystal contains all possibilities.  By nature, it contains what it is, no more, no less.

Let's call it a transparent crystal, and let's put ourselves outside it, with a laser pointer.  Shine that laser at the crystal, and it will illumine a path into it.  As far as you are concerned - as far as you can tell - only the illuminated path exists; all else is darkness, background.  What is illumined is real and everything else is theoretical.

Now change the angle the light strikes the crystal at - ever so slightly or quite a bit different, whichever you prefer.  What is illumined changes; what is background includes the path that was previously illumined.  What was "real" is now "only theoretical", or is "unknowable".  What was unknown, perhaps unsuspected, is now clearly seen as "real".

This, up to this point, is background.  Now I move on to what I meant by walking the possibilities, and here I must introduce a complication, though a very clarifying one.  The music on a record was only revealed when a needle dragged along the groove of the record.  No needle, no perceived sound, although the sound was inherently, latently, really there in the composition of the record.

If what you perceive as 3D reality is the record, your awareness is the needle, even though your awareness is also part of the record (because you and all your experiences are part of it.

(Q)  The guys told us the record and needle analogy as we being the needle, they the record.  You're saying not so simple?

(A)  Simple enough if you can remember that you are "the guys" as well as your physical existence.

(Q)  Oh yeah.  It's hard to keep that in mind once we sort of move on to other things.

(A)  Practice, practice.  As you get accustomed to thinking in a new way, more sophisticated levels of understanding become possible precisely because you become more able to hold each new awareness in mind as accepted background.

(Q)  So, walking the possibilities.

Manifesting possibilities

DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 2513). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition.

(A)  Well, it should be clear enough now.  The possibilities are inherent in the creation.  But they are not made manifest to the non-3D part of creation until they are experienced in 3D and conveyed.

(Q)  Which means experiencing them as if each were the only reality.

(A)  That is the setup.  It adds immediacy, interest, intensity.  Mostly it adds clarity.

(Q)  Pinpoint focus on the flavor of a life led along a path illuminated from a certain angle.

(A)  Well, don't get fixated on that image, helpful though it is.  Don't let yourself be led to think of your path as straight and strait, just because you imagine a line to be that way.  Light can bounce off slight irregularities and take quite a ride - to switch metaphors.

(Q)  All right, so I gather that - Oh!  I think I got it!  The point is not us as individuals shaping ourselves (though that is true) but that we experience whatever we experience because of our choices so that the non-3D can experience what until then was only potential.

(A)  Close enough.  And since different versions of yourself experience different lives because of different choices, we in non-3D (so to speak) get to see all the potential, not any one version alone.

(Q)  George Bernard Shaw scoffed at what he said was the Englishman's conception of the universe as a "moral gymnasium".  This is closer to his point of view, isn't it?

(A)  Find the Emerson quote you like and insert it.

[Emerson in 1828, age 25: "If you think you came into being for the purpose of taking an important part in the administration of events, to guard the province of the moral creation from ruin, and that its salvation hangs on the success of your single arm, you have wholly mistaken your business."]

(A)  Next time we will begin with Bob's question about language, which should be easy to dispose of.